Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: mumbai aurangabad Year: 2013 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.011 seconds)

Jan 29 2013 (HC)

Vitthal Janardan Phadke Vs. Prabhakar Mohiniraj Wable and Others

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

Decided on : Jan-29-2013

..... award of majority of arbitrators was upheld limited to the point of declaration that the partnership firm stood dissolved and rest of the award was set aside. [i] the partnership deed contains clauses, which read as follows:- "13. the partnership shall be governed by tall provisions of the indian partnership act, save and as otherwise provided that the firm shall not be dissolved by reasons of ..... the letters patent appeal no.51/2002 as modified in review application no.8367/2003, present applicant mr. vitthal phadke was permitted to operate the license "till the dispute regarding partnership is decided by the court". this review order is dated 7.4.2003. 9] much water has flown down the bridge between 2003 till october 2012 when the judgment in ..... done at page no.34, namely:- "we, therefore, hold that the respondent no.1 prabhakar wable alone is entitled to claim renewal of license from the authorities independent of the partnership firm, if same is otherwise permissible in accordance with the law." (quoted from paragraph no.24 of the judgment in lpa 146/2012 page no.34 of the ca 321 ..... no.8367/2003 in letters patent appeal no.51/2002 and maintained in the hon'ble supreme court, would govern the arrangement only until the question as to existence of partnership was to be ruled by courts and not any further. 14] in the result, the argument that the judgment suffers from error apparent on the face of record only represents .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 2013 (HC)

Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner Vs. the Sta ...

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

Decided on : Dec-10-2013

..... 194 while respondent 4 is its chairman. it is also a district sports committee. the respondent 1 state has nominated the trustees on said trust. respondent 5, the registered partnership firm undertaking the development of the subject sports center as per its concession agreement with the respondent 2, has been added as party on 12.9.2007. 3. this court ..... in certain contingencies, the provision there-under is permitted to be modified, that too after following the necessary prescribed procedure. the planning process under the mrtp act i.e. 1966 act is found to be quite an elaborate process. a number of town planners, architects and officers of the planning authority, and wherever necessary, those of the state government participate ..... development charges, said respondent again seeks the building permission for shopping plazas a and b. thus the respondent 2 again seeks building permission for buildings a and b and this act also militates with defence of deemed sanction. plea of deemed sanction must be certain and all necessary ingredients must be disclosed and established. 18. in this background, the ..... finance, build, transfer (fbt) and build, operate and transfer (bot) only in case of petitioner. similarly, it permitted commercial user also contrary to the reservation in dp under 1966 act. said gr also envisages execution of a memorandum of understanding (mou) between petitioner and respondent 2/3 finalizing the terms and conditions of development and approval thereto by the director .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //